PDA

View Full Version : Boring...



StrayDog_RR
05-26-2017, 02:56 PM
This is VERY boring.
I tought that the topic of this game was about exploring tropical places or forrest areas. Seems like we are very far from that so what's going on? (This is a retorical question, it's Ubi making mess on another IP)
I just saw the reveal trailer, we are in the US and the bad guys are some religious crazy fanatics. I thought that they were going to finally extend on the survival elements and instead they are just doing random stuff with the IP. I just hope that map makers will be able to make MP maps.
The only one left is Splinter Cell, I hope they won't mess that up as well. (I have no hopes)

StrayDog_RR
05-26-2017, 03:21 PM
Let's wait for some gameplay first.

Sure, but like I was saying the themes of this game already kills my interest.

JakeyChappers
05-26-2017, 03:35 PM
That's a shame, I'm buzzing for it though

Zebra_111
05-26-2017, 03:56 PM
Sure, but like I was saying the themes of this game already kills my interest.

nothing new about the setting. Was clear since days.
And still we don't know how gameplay has been changed.
Fishing and hunting confirmed so far.

StrayDog_RR
05-26-2017, 04:12 PM
You could hunt in the past 2 main games, but it was nonsense after upgrading your equipment OFC, it could've worked if the games had survival elements too bad they didn't so you basically had useless stuff in your backpack that you could sell for gaining useless money since you had weapons for free thanks to hijacking towers. I hope that they at least made some evolution on that.

mistados
05-26-2017, 04:34 PM
If you think it looks boring, don't buy it. No game is for everyone.

There are lots of games that aren't for me, but I don't bash them or the developers, because I recognise objectively that they are good games, enjoyed by many people, just not my cup of tea.

If this game isn't for you, move along.

StrayDog_RR
05-26-2017, 04:38 PM
If you think it looks boring, don't buy it. No game is for everyone.

There are lots of games that aren't for me, but I don't bash them or the developers, because I recognise objectively that they are good games, enjoyed by many people, just not my cup of tea.

If this game isn't for you, move along.

That doesn't mean I'm not free to share my thoughts. So thanks for you post. You can move along now.

usmovers_02
05-26-2017, 05:57 PM
I HATE when people say "this game isn't for you" when you've been with the franchise for a while. Those who were with the franchise since the first few games are the reason the franchise is alive and I'll say this much, I think I speak for quite a few when I say I felt ignored and unwanted during the develoment of FC3 and 4.

However I think both FC3 and 4 nailed the location themes of the franchise and I feel this one does as well. FC locations are exotic and beautiful locations and I think they've continued that trend beautifully here.

strigoi1958
05-26-2017, 06:23 PM
To the OP if you thought the topic of the game was about certain locations, then you simply got the wrong idea. You may well have based your supposition on seeing the content from earlier games but then you could argue that Primal doesn't belong if we thought FC games were about guns. To me FC games are about overcoming a bigger enemy in a hostile environment... maybe I'm wrong but just because I think one way and you think another... it doesn't make either of us right and Ubisoft doesn't have to listen to either of us.... :)

Mistados put it very well .... even though you may have taken exception to how he worded his last sentence... wasting time on negativity is pointless. You're entitled to your view, vent if it makes you feel better. Those of us who enjoy FC games for what they are, not for what we think they should be, will still enjoy it.

HorTyS
05-26-2017, 06:27 PM
This is VERY boring.
I tought that the topic of this game was about exploring tropical places or forrest areas. Seems like we are very far from that so what's going on? (This is a retorical question, it's Ubi making mess on another IP)
I just saw the reveal trailer, we are in the US and the bad guys are some religious crazy fanatics. I thought that they were going to finally extend on the survival elements and instead they are just doing random stuff with the IP. I just hope that map makers will be able to make MP maps.
The only one left is Splinter Cell, I hope they won't mess that up as well. (I have no hopes)

The reason for your disappointment though is because of your own expectations, I think that is an important thing for you to realize. There are going to be plenty of forests in this game, I'd wager that will probably be the majority of the land mass actually, but because you seem to think that FC is supposed to be specifically about tropical places, of course you're going to be disappointed. Ubi hasn't been beholden to tropical locales since FC2, which is good, because if every one was about tropical locations, now that would be boring, imagine if FC2/3/4 AND now 5 were all about tropical locations? talk about copy & paste.

You thought they would extend the survival elements, but far cry is not a survival game akin to day z or the like, so that was another thing that you wanted that didn't happen so now you're bummed about the game as a whole. having to maintain sleep, hunger & thirst bars or whatever doesn't sound like a lot of fun, i don't know what sort of survival elements you wanted exactly but especially considering that the game is modern and that has been known for a while now the expectation of them in this game should've died with the knowledge of it's setting really... Living in MT i have never been on the brink of death because of not having food to eat, it just doens't make sense in modern america....

So if you take stock of everything this game is doing that you don't like and then realize that it's because of your own specific desires I think it should (if you've a modicum of self-awareness & logic) become clear that you're disappointment is self inflicted and that faulting Ubisoft for the direction they've chosen is misguided.

LaMOi
05-26-2017, 06:46 PM
You could hunt in the past 2 main games, but it was nonsense after upgrading your equipment OFC, it could've worked if the games had survival elements too bad they didn't so you basically had useless stuff in your backpack that you could sell for gaining useless money since you had weapons for free thanks to hijacking towers. I hope that they at least made some evolution on that.

Completely agree with this....


The ill thought out loot / upgrade system made these mechanics and the rewards redundant !

HorTyS
05-26-2017, 06:53 PM
At this time we don't know if there have been changes to the hunting & crafting mechanics, so complaints about it are based on nothing as of yet. Even if it is the same I don't care. Once I upgraded all my gear i just stopped hunting the animals down... the rewards aren't redundant when you are no longer incentivized to collect them. At some point collecting hides & meat without reason to has got to be blamed on the user, not the mechanic....

StrayDog_RR
05-26-2017, 11:03 PM
I HATE when people say "this game isn't for you" when you've been with the franchise for a while. Those who were with the franchise since the first few games are the reason the franchise is alive and I'll say this much, I think I speak for quite a few when I say I felt ignored and unwanted during the develoment of FC3 and 4.

I know right? That sentence bought me back when we were simply asking infos about the map editor since FC4 announcement, we only got the answer when the situation turned hot for gaming medias, and the game was close to the release. "The game isn't for you" the same thing that Hutchinson said, "multiplayer maps were not played a lot so we decided to scrap it and make it sp/coop only" yeah that's because your old colleagues chosen to use matchmaking instead of a server browser! Blame the players for not playing the custom maps because your stupid design decision, don't blame yourself!

Poor developers they don't do nothing wrong!


However I think both FC3 and 4 nailed the location themes of the franchise and I feel this one does as well. FC locations are exotic and beautiful locations and I think they've continued that trend beautifully here.
I don't share the same opinion, but I respect it. The location feels very countryside imo.


To the OP if you thought the topic of the game was about certain locations, then you simply got the wrong idea.
Actually the main FC series was always about tropical/forest/desert setting, dealing with the the usual bad guy/s, Far Cry 2 was another story tho.

You may well have based your supposition on seeing the content from earlier games but then you could argue that Primal doesn't belong if we thought FC games were about guns.
Far Cry Primal is a spin off game/expansion, just like Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon. It doesn't belong to the main FC Universe.



Mistados put it very well .... even though you may have taken exception to how he worded his last sentence... wasting time on negativity is pointless. You're entitled to your view, vent if it makes you feel better. Those of us who enjoy FC games for what they are, not for what we think they should be, will still enjoy it.
No he didn't, one thing is that he speaks about his opinion, and another is that he says that this game is not for me so he had the answer he deserved.


You thought they would extend the survival elements, but far cry is not a survival game akin to day z or the like, so that was another thing that you wanted that didn't happen so now you're bummed about the game as a whole. having to maintain sleep, hunger & thirst bars or whatever doesn't sound like a lot of fun, i don't know what sort of survival elements you wanted exactly but especially considering that the game is modern and that has been known for a while now the expectation of them in this game should've died with the knowledge of it's setting really... Living in MT i have never been on the brink of death because of not having food to eat, it just doens't make sense in modern america....
They could've progressed on survival elements since FC2, too bad they lost their occasion. They removed gun jamming, simplified the gameplay with towers, gave you free weapons, introduced an useless hunting system just for upgrades, an useless backpack for store useless items, money that you couldn't spend because you could get weapons for free. Did they fix those issues with FC4? NO. Copy and paste of the things I mentioned . You've been living in MT, ok. What if the place was underdeveloped? What if it was Kyrat?


So if you take stock of everything this game is doing that you don't like and then realize that it's because of your own specific desires I think it should (if you've a modicum of self-awareness & logic) become clear that you're disappointment is self inflicted and that faulting Ubisoft for the direction they've chosen is misguided.
My disappointment is not self inflicted, Ubi just disappoints.

At some point collecting hides & meat without reason to has got to be blamed on the user, not the mechanic....
Yeaaah..... sure........
...
...
no comment about that.

HorTyS
05-27-2017, 12:05 AM
They could've progressed on survival elements since FC2, too bad they lost their occasion. They removed gun jamming, simplified the gameplay with towers, gave you free weapons, introduced an useless hunting system just for upgrades, an useless backpack for store useless items, money that you couldn't spend because you could get weapons for free. Did they fix those issues with FC4? NO. Copy and paste of the things I mentioned . You've been living in MT, ok. What if the place was underdeveloped? What if it was Kyrat?

-They lost their occasion? Not sure I know what you mean by that.

-Gun jamming would be a cool thing to return, but I wouldn't exactly consider that a survival mechanic.

-I don't know how gameplay is simplified by the towers. all that does is reveal points of interest, big deal...

-how is a hunting system useless when in the same sentence you describe it's use, upgrades for your carrying capacity.... WTF? it becomes unfruitful when you complete those upgrades, so then simply stop killing & skinning the animals... why is that an issue?

- Still gotta spend money on ammo, location maps, body armor etc.... having to much money is a problem?

-What if MT was under-developed? Pointless thing to wonder about, because it isn't, that is my point. It is not underdeveloped and so the desire for survival mechanics like hunger & thirst do not make sense in the context of the game's setting. The argument you're making for the feature you want requires the game to change entirely.


My disappointment is not self inflicted, Ubi just disappoints.

If that were true this game would be universally disappointing every single person in this forum which clearly isn't the case. I can only speak for myself on the matter, so I'll share my point of view, because I believe your disappointment is self inflicted. You seem to be basing your acceptance of the game on your own very specific conditions of what is & isn't "Far Cry" to you at a personal level. Is this game exactly what I think would be the ultimate Far Cry experience? No, it isn't. I never for a second suspected they would set the game in my own backyard. One of my thoughts about the franchise was that it would always be set in some far away locale i'd never actually see in person, but was sort of vaguely familiar with, but I am not disappointed in this direction? No, partly because they've subverted that per-conceived notion.

All the things you see as "wrong" about this game are your own ideals and the fact that this game does not meet those self-imposed conditions is causing your disappointment, hence being self-inflicted. Thats my perspective and the only reason I have it is because I realized I had the same issue with other games, which is why I try not to have many expectations about a game before I know a bit about it so that I can be more accepting about what it is, rather than reject it for what it isn't.




At some point collecting hides & meat without reason to has got to be blamed on the user, not the mechanic....
Yeaaah..... sure........
no comment about that.

No response to that? How come? Because it completely invalidates your complaint about it? Why does there absolutely have to be an incentive to hunt and skin animals for the entire length of the game? Why is it a horrible offense or terrible design to make killing animals for resources less beneficial at some point? I'm curious why you believe there should always be a reason to do it, can you explain that to me?

strigoi1958
05-27-2017, 01:21 AM
Actually the main FC series was always about tropical/forest/desert setting, dealing with the the usual bad guy/s, Far Cry 2 was another story tho..

No ... if you ask any person who has played far cry games what they are about, none will say they are about tropical, forest/ desert setting (did you forget the mountains and snow in FC4? :) ) they will say they are about fighting an evil but likeable bad guy and a big army by improving/ upgrading skills, weapons and equipment to achieve that. the location has nothing to do with the gameplay. You may well have preferred it to be somewhere else but the gameplay will remain... and that is why I buy games, not for leaves or vines or tigers. I know you feel the location is a vital aspect in the game but that is only one of your wishlist of components that you feel are necessary to consider it to be a FC game. When it comes down to any product, video games included.... it is the makers/ developers who decide what makes the product.... the only thing we decide is whether we like and whether we buy it.

If the location is too much of a problem for you then I am sorry that you will miss it, because FC games are awesome regardless of the location.


Mistados said
If you think it looks boring, don't buy it. No game is for everyone.

Correct game devs would love to make a game that everyone loves, but it is never going to happen. It is frustrating when something we like changes and we do not like all the changes, but we should not get hung up on these things, we should either embrace change and accept it as a challenge or just not buy and go to a new product.

There are lots of games that aren't for me, but I don't bash them or the developers, because I recognise objectively that they are good games, enjoyed by many people, just not my cup of tea.

Like Mistados I have bought games that are not right for me, some I have uninstalled after just minutes of playing (MGSV, Mass Effect 3, Borderlands, Elite Dangerous, to name just a few) it does not mean those games are bad (in fact some have been huge successes), it just means they are not right for me. I don't concern myself with them, I just move on to a new game that I do like.


If this game isn't for you, move along.

This part may have got lost in translation. All Mistados was saying is, if you are not going to buy or play the game, you should buy and play a different game. You're entitled to your opinion but this thread will never gain a million supporters that might possibly make Ubisoft sit up and take notice in the future and nothing can change FC5 now. So it will achieve nothing, apart from letting you vent some frustration... and as game players, we have all been annoyed at some time :)

He didn't say this game was not for you... he said IF this game isn't for you... meaning only you can decide that. I hope you get past this and buy it and really enjoy it.

Joshhhuaaa-SC
05-27-2017, 06:36 AM
The only one left is Splinter Cell, I hope they won't mess that up as well. (I have no hopes)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/Tom_Clancy%27s_Splinter_Cell_Conviction.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/47/Tom_Clancy%27s_Splinter_Cell_Blacklist_box_art.png

mistados
05-27-2017, 07:43 AM
Geez, everyone's a game developer these days.

For those whining and moaning about the very little content we know about the game thus far, here's an idea.

Why don't you make your own game? Your perfect game, exactly how YOU want it to be.

You will of course need skilled programmers, artists, modellers, animators, writers..etc

And you will need to pay these people, or you could always learn each of these skills yourself, you will also need a lot of time and commitment and a large investment of your own cash to get the ball rolling, unless you get crowd funding of course, problem with that is that you absolutely need to deliver, or else refund your backers.

Point is, game development is difficult, expensive, stressful and thankless.

Show the developers some respect and at the very least acknowledge the hard work and commitment these people have put into the project.

To see their work being bashed and criticised so early on, by people who haven't even played it yet must be so disheartening.

The reveal of a project is supposed to be a celebratory moment, but based on some of the posts I see I wouldn't be surprised if the Devs dread it.

It's embarrassing, we are all here because we love the virtual worlds these people create, and the fun they afford us, let's show them some appreciation.

Sure this is an open forum, freedom of speech is encouraged, it's nice to talk with like minded people and share our likes and individual dislikes, that's what makes a great community, we can even hope to influence the direction a game may take by way of collective and productive discussion.

But let's never lose sight of the fact that these games are their passion projects, their babies and at the end of the day it is purely theirs to shape as they see fit.

Let's be honest, the developers are best qualified to know what works and what doesn't.

That's why they are professionals in the field of games development, and most of us are not.

A little forethought would be nice, and a bit of encouragement.

HorTyS
05-27-2017, 08:09 AM
Conviction & Blacklist

I was a huge splinter cell fan, still am, and I enjoyed both Conviction & Blacklist for what they were... Just another case of expectation = disappointment. Splinter Cell games do lead to a great example though, everyone is complaining about FC being the same game re-skinned, copied & pasted etc, yet when they tried to mix things up and make significant changes in Splinter Cell, people were up in arms about it. "not the splinter cell i fell in love with!" and all that... devs can't win. change to much, it's no longer the sequel they wanted, don't change enough, it's the same game with new paint.... They just can't win either way with some people...

StrayDog_RR
05-27-2017, 09:28 AM
-They lost their occasion? Not sure I know what you mean by that.
Making the game unique and different from the others


-Gun jamming would be a cool thing to return, but I wouldn't exactly consider that a survival mechanic.

It helps you to care more about your weapons before shooting with no reason


-I don't know how gameplay is simplified by the towers. all that does is reveal points of interest, big deal...

Uhm hello? Free weapons anyone?


-how is a hunting system useless when in the same sentence you describe it's use, upgrades for your carrying capacity.... WTF? it becomes unfruitful when you complete those upgrades, so then simply stop killing & skinning the animals... why is that an issue?

It makes the game empty and gives you no reason to keep playing it, if they didn't patch FC3 on the last minute regarding the outposts it would've been totally EMPTY.


- Still gotta spend money on ammo, location maps, body armor etc.... having to much money is a problem?

Yes, when you exactly have nothing else to spend them for.


What if MT was under-developed? Pointless thing to wonder about, because it isn't, that is my point. It is not underdeveloped and so the desire for survival mechanics like hunger & thirst do not make sense in the context of the game's setting. The argument you're making for the feature you want requires the game to change entirely.
Theres difference between saying extend and change. Survival mechanics in Far Cry ABSOLUTELY make sense if you want to hunt animals. In Far Cry we never had modern setting apart from this one (FC5) so if you were far from towns some optional survival mechanics wouldn't hurt anyone. Fallout New Vegas had toggable hardcore mode, you could decide to activate survival elements or keep the game normal. IT WOULD HAVE GAVE MORE REPLAYABILITY TO THE GAME.



If that were true this game would be universally disappointing every single person in this forum which clearly isn't the case. I can only speak for myself on the matter, so I'll share my point of view, because I believe your disappointment is self inflicted. You seem to be basing your acceptance of the game on your own very specific conditions of what is & isn't "Far Cry" to you at a personal level. Is this game exactly what I think would be the ultimate Far Cry experience? No, it isn't. I never for a second suspected they would set the game in my own backyard. One of my thoughts about the franchise was that it would always be set in some far away locale i'd never actually see in person, but was sort of vaguely familiar with, but I am not disappointed in this direction? No, partly because they've subverted that per-conceived notion.

I speak for myself not for everybody, if you have your own opinion I respect it. But if you want to do the same game over and over again or changing it entirely from what is meant to be, to me is disappointing and doesn't make it a Far Cry game. I gave my thoghts about this game you are not meant to change my opinion because I don't care.
But we are talking about FC now. I've been a Ubi fan since these years , when I said ubi disappoints I was talking about other reason too, but I won't say anything its a long story.


No response to that? How come? Because it completely invalidates your complaint about it? Why does there absolutely have to be an incentive to hunt and skin animals for the entire length of the game? Why is it a horrible offense or terrible design to make killing animals for resources less beneficial at some point? I'm curious why you believe there should always be a reason to do it, can you explain that to me?
What?
"Why does there absolutely have to be an incentive to hunt and skin animals for the entire length of the game? "
Then why the **** don't they scrap this **** and make you buy directly equipment upgrade?
No comment because what you said doesn't make any sense.
It's not my fault if the devs doesn't have any creativity or ignore the fedback.
You could hunt animals and actually eat them in order to survive. Thats how it works if you are in a damn underdeveloped and almost-abandoned place.
They copied and pasted that straight in FC4 without any evolution.

I will answer to the other comments, I'm busy now.

HorTyS
05-27-2017, 10:39 AM
Making the game unique and different from the others

if it's completely unique & different from the others why would it be called far cry still? Should it be a totally different genre to? How is modern day MT not unique & different from ALL the past FC games? because there are returning mechanics & features? Newsflash, it's a sequel, every sequel to every game ever made has some gameplay overlap otherwise WTF is the point of remaining part of the same franchise?

It helps you to care more about your weapons before shooting with no reason

Right, and i agreed that it would be a cool thing to make a return (though they'd need to implement it and balance it better) but i still don't consider that a survival mechanic.

Uhm hello? Free weapons anyone?

So what, the weapons price has no effect on actual gameplay. If you don't want them to be free, buy them before doing the towers, The weapons are there to buy before you climb the towers, and when you unlock them for free they're not added to your loadout automatically. I don't fully disagree with you here, I think they could find a better way to get you the weapons than just giving them for free (my idea is that deactivating the towers gives you access to a side-quest in which the reward is the weapon) but complaining about that is really pedantic. I have actually heard that the tower system isn't in the game anymore anyway, so your assumption that they are is based on zero evidence.

It makes the game empty and gives you no reason to keep playing it, if they didn't patch FC3 on the last minute regarding the outposts it would've been totally EMPTY.

This was your response to my saying that the hunting system was not as useless as you claimed in the same sentence where you described it's very use. but the response seems to be more about clearing the outposts. The outposts could use an upgrade in how they work, I agree. For one thing when the enemies attack after you've taken it over, they should actually re-take it. In FC4 the enemies would attack (only outposts you were already right next to) but if you did nothing to intervene, literally nothing happened. You didn't lose control of it... I never understood why they added the attack feature if it did nothing... However if you clear the outposts, and have beaten the story, then yeah, there is no reason to keep playing, you beat the game, it's over.... start a new game or play something else, thats how games work....

Yes, when you exactly have nothing else to spend them for.

I'm gonna venture a guess that english is not your mother tongue? While I agree that the economy in the FC games is not exactly the most balanced thing in the world, I do not agree that it is a huge and disappointing issue that merits any complaints. Its the most first world problem to have... "oh i have too much money, how dreadful"

Theres difference between saying extend and change. Survival mechanics in Far Cry ABSOLUTELY make sense if you want to hunt animals. In Far Cry we never had modern setting apart from this one (FC5) so if you were far from towns some optional survival mechanics wouldn't hurt anyone. Fallout New Vegas had toggable hardcore mode, you could decide to activate survival elements or keep the game normal. IT WOULD HAVE GAVE MORE REPLAYABILITY TO THE GAME.

FC2/3/4 were all modern settings... And I meant that survival mechanics like managing hunger and thirst don't make sense because it's not believable that you'd be without them for extended periods in the setting of the game unless you just chose to deliberately stay out in the forest for in-game days at a time, but what would be the point of that?. It made sense in FCPrimal, a game without civilization, but not here... I am not completely opposed to there being optional survival mechanics that can be turned on or off, but the implementation would need to be done correctly. I wouldn't want playing with survival mechanics to be mandatory for 100% completion or something because they are tedious, obtrusive and dull from my estimation.

I speak for myself not for everybody, if you have your own opinion I respect it. But if you want to do the same game over and over again or changing it entirely from what is meant to be, to me is disappointing and doesn't make it a Far Cry game. I gave my thoghts about this game you are not meant to change my opinion because I don't care.
But we are talking about FC now. I've been a Ubi fan since these years , when I said ubi disappoints I was talking about other reason too, but I won't say anything its a long story.

haha, this response just absolutely solidifies what I've been saying. You are trying to dictate what Far Cry is meant to be or what a game has to be to be considered Far Cry. That is not up to you. You are the one who seems to want to change it entirely, and yet also be the same thing over and over with your insistence that it should go further with survival mechanics (FC has never been a survival game, who's trying to change what it is now?) and yet also that it should also always be some specific setting like a tropical locale (same game over & over). I have not been trying to change your mind, only to get you to open it.

You seem to have such a narrow view of what a Far Cry game can be that unless the developer were to consult you directly nothing they did could be considered Far Cry in your view... I have also been a fan of many Ubisoft titles for many years. Some games I enjoy more than others but I have never tried to say that a sequel that did things I did not agree with should not be considered a part of that series or that they should have done something completely different just because I didn't agree with the decisions they'd made. That is frankly quite an arrogant mindset to have in my opinion.

What?
"Why does there absolutely have to be an incentive to hunt and skin animals for the entire length of the game? "
Then why the **** don't they scrap this **** and make you buy directly equipment upgrade? No comment because what you said doesn't make any sense.

Uuum, it totally makes sense, because for the first half of the game there IS incentive to hunt, and upgrade your capacities to become more efficient and powerful. Just because at some point there are no longer strong incentives to do it does not mean that it is completely pointless all together. It serves a quite significant purpose for a long time actually but then eventually, doesn't, that is no reason to completely remove hunting and crafting all together... that train of thought is entirely devoid of logic.

It's not my fault if the devs doesn't have any creativity.

And yet the most creative thing you can come up with is that we should just be able to eat what we kill to keep some stupid hunger meter up? A hundred other games have hunger mechanics, that is not a creative solution to incentivize hunting beyond crafting either, quite a played out one actually...

You could hunt animals and actually eat them in order to survive. Thats how it works if you are in a damn underdeveloped and almost-abandoned place.
They copied and pasted that straight in FC4 without any evolution.

Also they have yet to get into specifics about any possible changes to the hunting & crafting so you're basing this allegation on zero evidence as well. Objection, heresay, SUSTAINED!

I will answer to the other comments, I'm busy now.

I do hope you don't take everything I'm trying to say as an attack. I'm aware that my disagreeing with people can seem hostile but I promise you I am trying to understand your perspective while explaining my own and attempting to encourage others to do the same by seeing another point of view on the topic at hand.

strigoi1958
05-27-2017, 04:36 PM
Also OP you cannot complain about changes in a game and then also criticise too much copy and paste or lack of creativity.... if you have things that you think should be changed, then you cannot criticise the devs for changing things just because you don't want those things changed. That is hypocrisy.

Plus all the things you want changed may well be things that other FC players consider to be core features of the game.... why should you, or I or anyone else choose what stays and what changes? especially when it upsets other people?

HorTyS
05-27-2017, 07:28 PM
It's already confirmed 5v5 and this isn't really an appropriate thread for this topic, there are a good 5+ theads about the map editor, this one is about something else entirely...